Huffpost Crime

Anti-Paparazzi Law In California Appears To Be Constitutional, Says Appeals Panel

Posted: Updated:
An appeals panel said California's anti-paparazzi statute appears to be constitutional. | Alamy

LOS ANGELES -- An appeals panel says California's anti-paparazzi statute appears to be constitutional based on a brief filed by prosecutors.

A preliminary statement by three judges in Los Angeles requires a judge who dismissed charges aimed at a paparazzo who authorities say was driving recklessly to review his order. The judge may stick to his ruling, which would trigger a full appeal, or he could schedule further arguments on the case against freelance photographer Paul Raef.

Raef was the first person charged under the new law after a high-speed chase involving Justin Bieber last year.

Superior Court Judge Thomas Rubinson dismissed two charges in November, ruling the law is too broad and is unconstitutional.

Raef's attorney David S. Kestenbaum says he is asking Rubinson to stand by his ruling and allow a full appeal.

Also on HuffPost:

Celebrities Who Scuffled With Paparazzi
Share this
Current Slide

Suggest a correction

Around the Web

California passes new anti-paparazzi law, but will it help? (Or at ...

An extreme example: The California anti-paparazzi laws | Reporters ...

Anti-Paparazzi Law SIGNED In California

Protecting Celebrities – Understanding the Anti-Paparazzi Law in

Appeals judges: Anti-paparazzi law appears legal

All Share Services

Justin Bieber Paparazzo Death A Tragic Irony: Could Rejected Anti-Paparazzi ...

Some put the 'rat' in paparazzi